PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dribble said:
You're quite correct. If A accuses B, A has to present their evidence to support the accusation & give B the opportunity to offer a defence & supporting counter evidence.

What you can't do is accuse someone of wrongdoing with zero evidence & challenge them to disprove the claim, or ask for evidence to prove the claim.

You make the claim, you provide your evidence & the other side can either accept the claim in whole or part & provide whatever necessary supporting evidence.

This is why the only long-term solution is an independent regulator & the scrapping of FFP & the fair workable revision of football finances & debt management.
Click to expand...
I know that ostensibly you can’t do that, but realistically that is what UEFA first and now the PL have tried to do…
 
Shads said:
Sorry for all the replies in one go. With the time zone difference and waiting until I finish my working day it means most other posters are asleep. Also takes me a while to read everything and catch up… you lot are posting while I am asleep and then working…
Click to expand...
Your posts have been a good read mate, thanks for taking the time to go through it all.
 
Len Rum said:
Not sure.
IMO the time bar is a matter of legal principle i.e. is it PL rules or is it English law ( to which PL rules are subject).
I think stefan mentioned on twitter that in his view some allegations could be time barred.
Click to expand...
The PL rules are subject to the Limitation Act. In short, 6 years from cause of action unless the PL prove dishonest concealment such that the PL could never have known until the leaks
 
projectriver said:
The PL rules are subject to the Limitation Act. In short, 6 years from cause of action unless the PL prove dishonest concealment such that the PL could never have known until the leaks
Click to expand...

About that, what would come first?

Do they look first at whether the allegation is time-barred, maybe by considering the evidence from the PL, and a level of counter-evidence from the club that is less than full.

Or do they look at all the evidence from both sides and then decide on whether it is dishonest concealment and therefore the question of time-barred or not is settled?

It seems unreasonable to proceed with a detailed investigation on such a serious charge if the allegation isn't supported by a persuasive body of evidence?
 
John Wayne said:
True. But there is a clear distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I would agree that the image rights is the least certain of the three issues you highlighted. Given the scope and nature of the allegations, it will be difficult for the PL to prove that we acted with malicious intent in sourcing things to Fordham. Last week I said we might be penalised for technical breaches and this is one such area where that might come into play - we can prove that we maintained a constant, honest dialogue with the authorities but may nevertheless be found to have been wrong.
Click to expand...
My limited experience of the tax authorities is some 30 years out of date but particularly with Holding Companies they put their people on site checking Inter company transactions. A bit like the football authorities did with City.
Perhaps no manpower for that now.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I find that all the more remarkable, that out of the millions of emails there are only an isolated handful taken out of context and at times spliced together, that are supposedly the smoking gun.
I do find that mind boggling, that this is the basis of a case against City.

It doesn’t surprise me, but it always seemed like clutching at straws to me.

Having said that I do think we’ve already lost and the objective of our detractors has been achieved.

There is no proof of innocence. It’s immaterial. I’m growing to hate this game the more I learn about it.

The only victory that would change this for me is for us to get a counter message out there to fans of the rest of the league that a cartel is running this show and the rest of the league are just complicit puppets.

I don’t see that happening though.
Click to expand...
Did you not hear Pep say exactly that? Did he not mention the 8ful and how all of the others had signed this off?
 
Shads said:
I dont think that’s correct. We are only obligated to provide relevant financial documents. Not any document they ask for.
City’s case has always been that they provided relevant financial documents but nothing else is relevant unless it is a specific document that they can point to in terms of the document itself existing and why it is relevant.
This is why I think the failure to cooperate with PL charge will be difficult to uphold. They would have to show that we failed to provide specific documents, not refused to hand over the intricate workings of City’s business model. If they had been specific and not engaged on a fishing expedition then we would have already handed over the documents.
Click to expand...
Can you explain to the lay people amongst us how the premier league and uefa/CAS non compliance charges differ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.